Misled - Iraq and Vietnam?Follow

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.vietnam02dec02,1,1860602.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

I don't know what to believe now

I understand the humor of your statement, but on a more serious note...

Wasn't LBJ considered to be one of the crappier presidents we have had anyways?

I figure someone in their late 30's or early 40's would have a better impression of the man than this spring chicken.

If you're looking for someone that age, try Moe.

To paraphrase the Jophed one...

Heh, I see how that could of been taken the wrong way. My bad!

I was not pointing to anyone directly, just meaning that could some of the people older than 23 on the board please agree or disagree with my statement, or if you just hapeen to have knowledge on the statement.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff had already planned on air strikes in Vietnam early in 64. The Gulf of Tonkin bombing raids were reportedly delayed by Johnson because he wanted to "damned sure the attacks had taken place".

The Tonkin Resolution, though important in that it gave Johnson free reign to continue supporting the South Vietnamese efforts, had little impact on the decision in July of 65 to actually begin the war as the aggressors in Vietnam.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident whether real or contrived was more of a media tool to sell the war to the public. I think the events would have played out in a similar way with or without the alledged attack on the USS Maddox.

OMG the Spanish American War was based on lies! Impeach McKinley!

Declaration of war

On February 15, 1898, the American battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor suffered an explosion and quickly sank with a loss of 266 men. Evidence as to the cause of the explosion was inconclusive and contradictory, but the American press, led by the two New York papers, proclaimed that this was certainly a despicable act of sabotage by the Spaniards. The press aroused the public to demand war, with the slogan "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!". This chauvinistic belligerent feeling is known as jingoism.

With the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpowder magazines situated too close to heat sources. Modern analytical tools, especially computer simulations, have all but confirmed this. A few still think a Spanish mine, a standard Spanish tactic at that time, could have been the cause. While some people still think that the cause could have been some other form of sabotage, they point the finger at Cuban revolutionaries who hoped to draw the U.S. into the war or U.S. operatives on orders to trigger an inevitable war to oust Spain from the Caribbean. Almost all agree, the Spaniards would have had no rational interest in provoking a war.

U.S. President William McKinley was not inclined towards war, and had long held out against intervention, but the Maine explosion so forcefully shaped public opinion that he had to agree. Spanish minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta did much to try to prevent this, including withdrawing the officials in Cuba against whom complaints had been made, and offering the Cubans autonomy. This was well short of full independence for Cuba, however, and would have done little to change the status quo.

Thus, on April 11, McKinley went before Congress to ask for authority to send American troops to Cuba for the purpose of ending the civil war there. On April 19, Congress passed joint resolutions proclaiming Cuba "free and independent" and disclaiming any intentions on Cuba, demanded Spanish withdrawal, and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuban patriots gain freedom from Spain. (This was adopted by Congress from Senator Henry Teller of Colorado as the Teller Amendment, which passed unanimously.) In response, Spain broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. On April 25, Congress declared that a state of war between the United States and Spain had existed since April 21st (Congress later passed a resolution backdating the declaration of war to April 20th).

Bush didn't make up his own evidence, either; I was using LBJ as a stand-in for his war machine.

The Wiki article linked up notes that there were two attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin, one which happened and one which did not. The first attack was August 2 1964 on the USS Maddox and resulted in a single machine gun round hitting the destroyer. This occured in international waters and was acknowledged by both the Vietnamese and the United States.

The second attack was said to have happened on August 4 1964. During this incident destroyers Maddox and USS C. Turner Joy were fired upon by the enemy. This was cited as a justification for going to war. This attack did not actually happen, despite firm believe in it's reality at the time. That's what the NSA analysis deals with - the non-existant August 4 attack.


Further complicating matters are the fact that the Maddox and Joy were running `DeSoto` missions. A DeSoto mission is a combination of military posturing and intelligence gathering. Destroyers had vans bolted down to their decks; the vans were loaded with sensors and radios. The government of North Vietnam claimed a 12 mile maritime border, which the United States chose to not recognize.

The goal of a DeSoto mission was to gain intelligence by intentionally sailing into claimed maritime territory - specifically they wanted to sail close enough to make the enemy turn their costal radars on, which would allow for the radar locations to be mapped out. Destroyers are a good ship to use as they don't get blown up very easily and are capable of responding if attacked. The sensor-loaded van that they had on-deck was used to do advanced signal intelligence work, intercepting enemy radio traffic and the like.

In the case of the August 4th incident, both Maddox and Joy were given permission to sail within 5 miles of the North Vietnam coastline, as well as up within 4 miles of selected islands. North Vietnam's maritime claims were not respected by the United States, and even when they were, our foreign policy stated that simply because we respect a given claim does not mean our nation actually legally acknowledges it.


I could understand North Vietnam opening fire given the presence of warships sitting within firing range of their coastline, particularly when combined with other actions that had been going on (SEAL activity in the region, for example). It's a moot point though; apparently the Vietnamese didn't attack on August 4 at all.

edit: fixed a date

Edited, Fri Dec 2 13:01:01 2005 by Wingchild

Ooooh, Saddam was harboring pirates.

I see.


(There has been no proof Iraq was harboring terrorists.)


Editted to add that if it was pirates we were worried about we should have sent Katie to deal with it.


Edited, Fri Dec 2 12:50:25 2005 by Elinda

An interesting point; your contention is that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war came to Bush and other parties (Colin Powell? Rumsfeld? The Joint Chiefs?), and that they made a conscious decision to promote certain aspects while neglecting others.

In contrast, LBJ was a poor, misguided man fed bad information by war-mongering analysts who were attempting to promote a certain angle all on their own.


I think neither can be a correct assertation, but the acquisition and moving of intelligence data is entirely classified in our country as a matter of necessity. We don't really get to see who makes what decision where.

I think neither can be a correct assertation, but the acquisition and moving of intelligence data is entirely classified in our country as a matter of necessity. We don't really get to see who makes what decision where.
---------------------------------------

what does and doesnt get classified in this country usually has very little to do with national security, and more to do with making sure the public does not know what goes on behind closed doors.

IE, people in power pick and choose what you see and dont see depending on what they want you to believce or not believe, and not necessarily because it affects our national security.

for example:

cheney not disclosing who attended the meeting that formed our energy policy, or what was disscussed in that meeting.

the names of all the american companies that sold iraq chemical precursers to make weapons with crossed out of the final U.N. report before it was released to the public.

this practice did not start with this addministraition, and it will not stoip with this one either.

the bottom line, your an idiot if you think what you hear from your leaders is the whole truth on any given subject.

what to do?

demand proof, dont ask for it, before you give your support to any politician screaming WAR. trust NO MAN. women either for that matter.

we saw NO PROOF of ANY of the claims this addministraition claimed leading up to the war in Iraq.

something to live by. a good product ir idea does not have to be SOLD to you, a bad one does. hence, japan attacked pearl habor. didnt need to sell the public a war that time. osama bin laudin attacked new york, didnt need to sell going into afganistan to anyone, in this country or outside of it.

we were SOLD iraq.

politicians LIE. it is their job to LIE to get what they want. demand proof. or, trust your life and well being to a LIER.

only the IDIOTS in this country, who learned NOTHING from vietnam trusted Bush at his word. and we all are getting what THEY deserve.

That was pretty damn obvious ...

The point remains that the administration in general used information to their own agenda without supplying much proof to support their claims.

As time rolls on the proof usually points to the contrary, but since hindsight is 20/20 its kind of hard to cross all your t's and dot your i's.

I'm not supporting their actions, but as others have stated, its not the first nor the last time this will occur.

Do you really think Nixon orchistrated the snatch-n-run that put him out of the office?

Then fu[b][/b]ck LBJ for leading us into war on bad intelligence, right?